The Chiropractic Board of Australia has had enough:
“We will not tolerate registered chiropractors giving misleading or unbalanced advice to patients, or providing advice or care that is not in the patient’s best interests,” chairman Phillip Donato said.
Dr Donato said chiropractors should only provide evidence-based treatment and anyone with concerns should report them. [Sydney Morning Herald August 9 2013]
Jeffrey Brooks is a member of the Chiropractors’ Association of Australia. His business associate is Xavier Mirouze. Together they practice business at Sydney Chiropractic Care. This abomination, presented as a series of screenshots, is what passes for their business’s Facebook page:
Name the crackpot conspiracy, it’s here:
Flu vaccines cause Alzheimer’s. Seriously:
Fluoridation of our water causes “docile, submissive behaviour…”:
Mercury in vaccines causes autism, except it doesn’t:
The pièce de résistance. A meme shared from the page of the World’s Worst Person™, Erwin Alber. Vaccines with added skull and crossbones. What could be more deranged?
I stopped scrolling through the page after that. I think we’ve seen enough.
As is common with chiropractors, the fine people at Sydney Chiropractic Care also have no regard for advertising recommendations as set by the Board:
Here is what the Chiropractic Board of Australia has to say about offering discounts as inducements in advertising. Again, the Board needs to clean up this section. It is too open to abuse, as is obvious:
Guidelines for advertising of regulated health services
6.6 Use of gifts or discounts in advertising
The use of gifts or discounts in advertising is inappropriate, due to the potential for such inducements to encourage the unnecessary use of regulated health services.
If a practitioner or a person advertising a regulated health service does use a discount, gift or any other inducement to attract patients or clients to a service, the offer must be truthful, and the terms and conditions of that offer must be set out clearly in the advertisement.
Again, it’s either “inappropriate”, or it’s not.
Over to you, once more, CBA.
Dr Fudenberg has published 850 peer reviewed journal papers??? I’ve worked with some fairly prominent doctors and researchers but I don’t know anyone that prolific. Let say the average working career is about 40 years that is approximately 21 papers per year. Lets assume he takes 4 weeks of annual leave, that means he published a paper in a peer reviewed journal every 2 weeks or so.
How does someone who has a ‘scientific’ degree not see a big red flag on this fact alone before posting it on their FB page?
Also a little bit more about Dr Fudenberg. SPOILER ALERT: There is no published research that shows an increased risk of Alzheimers associated with flu vaccines.
Why would you go to a health professional who gets their information from disreputable sources?
Awwww. They always forget radiation from regular, unwarranted full skull/brain, spinal/CNS and excessive joint X-Rays. Just what one needs.
Fudenberg appears in the prestigious Encyclopedia of American Loons:
Fudenberg is not ”world’s leading immuno-geneticist” at all – he had some straight immunology publications back in the 1960’s and ’70’s – immunology has advanced enormously since then. IN his list of ”recent publications” (http://www.nitrf.org/recentpub.html) most were not published at all (”submitted”) and the rest appear to be essays in a non=specific open-access journal.